|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One True Church? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What's patriarchy got to do with it? Or collusion for that matter. Which secular authority do you propose forced the disposal of the bodies in this manner?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ouch.
Church collusion with patriarchy makes for one very unholy mess.
When a state relies on the church to provide welfare to that extent and allows the church to dictate the terms, this is what can happen.
It isn't particularly the church's fault though, rather that of the people involved.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I heard that on the radio. They omitted the nature of the convenient hole.
There are a couple of sites in England where largish numbers of infants were buried in association with Roman shrines of Venus. I had thought that nearest one to me, where 13 had been buried in a bank beside the bread ovens was somewhat dismissive of the babies. But there were only 13, and each one had its own individual grave. The other site had 97 babies buried under the floors or the walls of a villa. The original dig had kept this quiet because it was so shocking.
That these sisters had the belief that they could treat the children like the contents of a cess pit beggars belief. Even the worshippers of Moloch at Carthage had greater respect for the children they gave to the god than these women had for the children they starved. Who will help them when they get to judgement?
What will the archaeologists of the future think when they find any such graves that have been missed in the search that will now follow? That Christians are truly what the Romans thought we were, haters of humanity who ate babies?
(I'm taking refuge in archaeology because what my mind is shrieking I do not want to write.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I just cannot process this. It's too big. Too evil.
And the fact that the priest they trotted out to give a statement cannot even bring himself to admit that it was evil is shocking.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Totally disgusting and depraved.
How the RCC can continue to claim that it is Jesus's only true church while these evils have been conducted on its watch and with its approval is beyond me.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Jesus said that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit".
This is bad fruit.
Therefore....
(But hey, what's piffling little logic compared to the great weight of Tradition of the "One True Church"?!?!) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Jesus said that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit".
This is bad fruit.
Therefore....
Be careful with such a line of argument, though. Every church, every person has done things wrong of one sort or other. Are we all therefore 'bad trees'?
Don't get me wrong, this discovery is absolutely horrendous, likewise the thus far insipid response of the RCC. But I would't write off the whole of the RCC as a 'bad tree' because of it.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Jesus said that "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit".
This is bad fruit.
Therefore....
Be careful with such a line of argument, though. Every church, every person has done things wrong of one sort or other. Are we all therefore 'bad trees'?
Don't get me wrong, this discovery is absolutely horrendous, likewise the thus far insipid response of the RCC. But I would't write off the whole of the RCC as a 'bad tree' because of it.
Nor would I. But I think it's hard to see them as the "one good tree", isn't it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Quite so, K:LB, quite so.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ouch.
Church collusion with patriarchy makes for one very unholy mess.
I'm not sure about in collusion with; the church has been one of the pillars of patriarchy, hasn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
This is the same church that teaches that contraception is a grave sin and aborting a one day old zygote is equal to murder. Slowly starving living children to death is just a small mishap, though. Once again, the RCC only seems to care about the unborn, or maybe what they really care about most is having control of their women's reproduction.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I am now thinking that a combination of Dante, Defoe and Bosch is required to show the fate of those involved.
But there is a history behind it. Kilkenny Workhouse had mass burials of the victims of the Famine and associated typhus.
And there was this:
Hidden burials
And this:
More children
And again:
Further mass burials
In context, the behaviour becomes more explicable - but not a flaming cess pit. And not so long after the horrors of the Famine.
[ 05. June 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This is the same church that teaches that contraception is a grave sin and aborting a one day old zygote is equal to murder. Slowly starving living children to death is just a small mishap, though. Once again, the RCC only seems to care about the unborn, or maybe what they really care about most is having control of their women's reproduction.
That seems exactly right to me. 'Pro-life' is a particularly bizarre and fucked-up term, since such people often seem uninterested in children living in poverty; but a foetus in a womb brings them out in boils, as if they had ownership of it and the woman involved. Sick.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Please will someone explain why zygotes have such importance to the RCC, but children don't? So many instances of terrible abuse, yet an abortion of a group of cells is counted a grave sin.
I know they want to control women and especially their sexuality - but there must be more to it than that?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
From the article -
"Do not say Catholic prayers over these dead children. Don't insult those who were in life despised and abused by you."
Well said ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's patriarchy got to do with it?
Unmarried pregnant women are rejected by society and families and hidden away.
Where are the men involved? Why are they not socially isolated and vilified too?
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ouch.
Church collusion with patriarchy makes for one very unholy mess.
I'm not sure about in collusion with; the church has been one of the pillars of patriarchy, hasn't it?
No. It just continued the sin it was historically born into.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Father Fintan Monaghan, secretary of the Tuam archediocese, says: "I suppose we can't really judge the past from our point of view, from our lens."
What an outrageously pathetic excuse of a statement.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where are the men involved? Why are they not socially isolated and vilified too?
Same place, and same reason, as whoever the woman who was taken in adultery and brought before Jesus had been taken in adultery with.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But I think it's hard to see them as the "one good tree", isn't it?
But the claim to be the one true Church does not entail the claim to be the one good tree. One of the traditional truths this Church maintains is that the Church is made up of both sinners and saints.
However, I think there is a lesson to be learned that goes beyond this. Like other 20thC atrocities, RC nuns chucking a few hundred dead children into a sewage tank, children that died under their care and presumably due to their negligence if not abuse, are about more than just individual sin. They are about systemic evil. It is just very unlikely that we are talking about an order of psychopaths there. We are likely talking about regular women, probably even women that sincerely set out to do good and God's work, ending up doing horrible things.
Systemic evil is both sickening and fascinating. I don't think that the Church really knows what to do about it. But I also don't think that secular society has come up with a real solution, other than simply presenting past systemic evils in the hope to avoid at least their direct repetition.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
From BBC:
quote:
The Tuam home was one of 10 institutions in which about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women - so-called fallen women - are thought to have been sent.
The children of these women were denied baptism and segregated from others at school. If they died at such facilities, they were also denied a Christian burial.
I can't even...
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
I spotted this first on the BBC News site.
The basic description was bad enough but I was particularly incensed by two paragraphs near the end of the report:
quote:
The Tuam home was one of 10 institutions in which about 35,000 unmarried pregnant women - so-called fallen women - are thought to have been sent.
The children of these women were denied baptism and segregated from others at school. If they died at such facilities, they were also denied a Christian burial.
WTF - they refused to baptise or give a Christian burial to the children!!!
I suppose they argued that the penalty for the sins of the fathers (or mothers in this case) should fall upon their children.
And, no doubt, they preached about the love of God!!
I am not often moved to post in Hell, and very rarely swear, but this is just f...ing appalling!
How on earth is the RC church going to wriggle out of this one?
{x-posted with seekingsister)
[ 05. June 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please will someone explain why zygotes have such importance to the RCC, but children don't? So many instances of terrible abuse, yet an abortion of a group of cells is counted a grave sin.
I'm pretty sure this is DH territory, but to Catholic ears you are asking "Why does the RCC focus on the ongoing, legalised slaughter of millions upon millions of children in early development that is widely accepted across Western societies; rather than dealing with the neglect and abuse of thousands of more developed children and young adults that some of her clergy and religious were/are involved in?" The obvious answer is then that she should do both, but that the latter does not in any way motivate slacking on the former.
--------------------
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
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But I think it's hard to see them as the "one good tree", isn't it?
But the claim to be the one true Church does not entail the claim to be the one good tree.
Why on earth not? Other than "because it would come across as ludicrous to anyone with knowledge of history, and thereby invalidate the one-true-church claim"?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Let me put it a different way for your RC ears then - why should we believe that you really give a fuck for the poor widdle zygotes when your church has treated children so shockingly in the past and continues to make mealy-mouthed semi-apologies about it?
[x-posted with St Deird]
[ 05. June 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
why should we believe that you really give a fuck for the poor widdle zygotes when your church has treated children so shockingly in the past and continues to make mealy-mouthed semi-apologies about it?
You're confusing the institution of the Church with the all too fallible people who occupy it.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
why should we believe that you really give a fuck for the poor widdle zygotes when your church has treated children so shockingly in the past and continues to make mealy-mouthed semi-apologies about it?
You're confusing the institution of the Church with the all too fallible people who occupy it.
Not really. The church is those people. The people who claim to be horrified when a zygote is flushed down the bog. The people who bugger choirboys. The people who ran these hell-holes in the first place. The people who abused their positions in church schools. People.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I realize that, Karl. But as others have pointed out, you are confusing the institution with some of the people inside it.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I realize that, Karl. But as others have pointed out, you are confusing the institution with some of the people inside it.
I don't think that's a meaningful distinction. The church is its people.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Just so.
I don't often post in Hell, but this whole business makes me ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Small wonder the RCC in Ireland seems to be vanishing down the pan........
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Hell seems an odd place to be getting into this discussion, but I don't think that's what Jesus meant in Matthew 16:18. He said "I will build my church", meaning an institution that people would then be free to join or not join as they wished. People might join for the wrong reasons, or, once inside, behave badly, but they are not what Jesus built.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not really. The church is those people. The people who claim to be horrified when a zygote is flushed down the bog. The people who bugger choirboys. The people who ran these hell-holes in the first place. The people who abused their positions in church schools. People.
Yes - all these things were institutionalised by the RC Church. The RC Church was their cover and their protector. People were made to look up to these nuns and priests and they became untouchable. (Shades of Jimmy Savile?)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The RC Church was their cover and their protector.
And still is! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Such a cop-out saying that the institution is separate from the people in it. So where is this ethereal Platonic institution, with no people?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
WTF - they refused to baptise or give a Christian burial to the children!!! I suppose they argued that the penalty for the sins of the fathers (or mothers in this case) should fall upon their children. And, no doubt, they preached about the love of God!! I am not often moved to post in Hell, and very rarely swear, but this is just f...ing appalling! How on earth is the RC church going to wriggle out of this one?
I sincerely have no idea what was going on in Ireland back then... The only canonical impediment to child baptism that I am aware of is that there must be reasonable hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Otherwise the child is not supposed to be baptised into the Catholic Church. My guess is hence that whatever argument was used back then, explicitly or implicitly, it was founded on that. But I have no idea how this would work even on its own terms, given that these children ended up being in the care of RC religious. Baffling.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Why on earth not? Other than "because it would come across as ludicrous to anyone with knowledge of history, and thereby invalidate the one-true-church claim"?
Knowing what is true and right, and doing what is good and right, are two rather different things. I consider this to be a basic truth of human experience... If you have no idea what I'm talking about there, then I admire your saintliness and ask for your prayers.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let me put it a different way for your RC ears then - why should we believe that you really give a fuck for the poor widdle zygotes when your church has treated children so shockingly in the past and continues to make mealy-mouthed semi-apologies about it?
I might as well ask you why I should believe that you really give a fuck about a few thousand abuse and neglect cases when you are apparently perfectly fine with many millions of children being systematically killed?
I find that sort of rhetoric rather pointless. All that we actually prove by it is that we disagree on when a human person with human rights comes into being. But we knew that without trying to discredit each other's characters, and it contributes little to the discussion of the case at hand.
--------------------
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
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
My first generation father father was raised in a Catholic Orphanage in North America in the 1920 -30s after his parents both died. He seldom discussed it but when he did the stories were sadder and more harrowing than his stories of fighting in WWII (where he survived the battle of the bulge) When I read these stories my heart breaks for him and the others and I know they endured more than I can know. I understand why he turned his back on the church and never returned. When he was old and dying he was haunted by the things he had seen and endured and I wonder how those charged with the care of those children could be so craven.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The point is, I think, that the original failing of allowing all of these children to die is not the action of the entire institution, but of one group of people, one particular set of individuals.
The action, however, was based on a theological perspective that is the responsibility of the church organisation as a whole. They were acting on the basis - mistaken maybe - of their churches theology. That is about a mistaken theology, and its the responsibility of the church organisation.
But the real problem is that now it has come out, the church is waffling. As so often, the response is what suggests that the church organisation today sees very little wrong. That sucks like a black hole.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
WTF - they refused to baptise or give a Christian burial to the children!!! I suppose they argued that the penalty for the sins of the fathers (or mothers in this case) should fall upon their children. And, no doubt, they preached about the love of God!! I am not often moved to post in Hell, and very rarely swear, but this is just f...ing appalling! How on earth is the RC church going to wriggle out of this one?
I sincerely have no idea what was going on in Ireland back then... The only canonical impediment to child baptism that I am aware of is that there must be reasonable hope that the child will be raised Catholic. Otherwise the child is not supposed to be baptised into the Catholic Church. My guess is hence that whatever argument was used back then, explicitly or implicitly, it was founded on that. But I have no idea how this would work even on its own terms, given that these children ended up being in the care of RC religious. Baffling.
Baffling? Not really. Churches frequently foster and act on the prejudices of the cultures around them. The children of unwed mothers were refused the sacrament of baptism because it was just so shameful to be an unwed mother in Ireland at the time that the shame carried over to their children. An 80-something-year-old life-long parishioner in my church says that when she got divorced in the 50s, she was told by the rector, "There is no place at St. Luke's for a divorced woman." Likewise, there were some local school districts that would not hire her to teach because she was divorced.
In both these cases, there was a cultural prejudice fostered by the local church. And the churches in both cases are responsible because it was the churches' teachings that were the basis of the prejudice.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not really. The church is those people. The people who claim to be horrified when a zygote is flushed down the bog. The people who bugger choirboys. The people who ran these hell-holes in the first place. The people who abused their positions in church schools. People.
Sure, they are all people. But in fact, they are not all the same people, but rather many different people in many different places at many different times. And as far as the institution Church is concerned, these people make up a small fraction of it. Even if you wave aside the billion plus laypeople in the Church, and focus exclusively on the religious and clergy, then what you say there (except for worrying about zygotes) applies to only a small fraction of the people in the Church. It really is a big Church.
Quite possibly, the Church in Ireland was (is?) a breeding ground for evil. That should never happen, but sometimes it does. Of course, way back in history the Church in Ireland was a breeding ground for heroic sanctity. That should always happen, but rarely does. And yes, there are possibly reasons for both, such clustering may not be a statistical fluke. Nevertheless, even if the entire Church of Ireland was all devil spawn or all incarnate angels, it would barely make a dent in the average composition of the Church of saints and sinners.
The Church is many people, and your brush is simply not big enough to tar them all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
And that's how it seems today to someone outside the RCC.
My own C of E parish is Anglo-Catholic, insofar as we (or most of us) believe in the importance of the Sacraments. If our P-in-C ever witters on about the Holy Father, or how 'wonderful' (his favourite word!) the RCC is, at least in regard to certain issues, I shall ......again....
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point is, I think, that the original failing of allowing all of these children to die is not the action of the entire institution, but of one group of people, one particular set of individuals.
The action, however, was based on a theological perspective that is the responsibility of the church organisation as a whole. They were acting on the basis - mistaken maybe - of their churches theology. That is about a mistaken theology, and its the responsibility of the church organisation.
But the real problem is that now it has come out, the church is waffling. As so often, the response is what suggests that the church organisation today sees very little wrong. That sucks like a black hole.
I agree about the waffling, and a sort of casuistry which seems to go on. But what is the mistaken theology? I suppose that unmarried women are sinful? I suppose it went beyond that to a view that they should be punished, and then that their children should be punished. I don't know how that connects with any kind of theology, but maybe somebody can illuminate that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The RC Church was their cover and their protector. People were made to look up to these nuns and priests and they became untouchable. (Shades of Jimmy Savile?)
Untouchable by the secular authorities too, it would seem.
It took me a couple of goes at the BBC article, but it would appear that these deaths were recorded in the civil register. I make it an average of over 40 a year for that one site. Nobody thought to take a look at the practices?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But the real problem is that now it has come out, the church is waffling. As so often, the response is what suggests that the church organisation today sees very little wrong. That sucks like a black hole.
Perhaps it seems so according to the original link in the OP. But I don't see much wrong with the reaction of ++Neary as reported by the BBC (link repeated from above).
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In both these cases, there was a cultural prejudice fostered by the local church. And the churches in both cases are responsible because it was the churches' teachings that were the basis of the prejudice.
Sure, I get that. But for better or worse the RCC has a hierarchical organisation, and the people who make official policy decisions usually can offer some kind of argument for what they are doing. It might be a bad argument, but it usually isn't plain stupid, and certainly it will avoid a direct clash with official rules. But here there seems to have been a really unthinking adoption of cultural practices against clear canon law. And I'm sorry, but the RCC that I know sure as heck fucks up a lot, but rarely is caught in blatant self-contradiction. So I'm baffled.
--------------------
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
|
|
St. Gwladys
Shipmate
# 14504
|
Posted
I'm very glad my paternal grandmother, ansd my maternal great grandmother were neither Irish nor Catholic, also that they had supportive families who didn't disown them as "fallen women" but rather arranged informal adoptions of my father and my grandfather.
--------------------
"I say - are you a matelot?"
"Careful what you say sir, we're on board ship here"
From "New York Girls", Steeleye Span, Commoners Crown (Voiced by Peter Sellers)
Posts: 3333 | From: Rhymney Valley, South Wales | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I realize that, Karl. But as others have pointed out, you are confusing the institution with some of the people inside it.
I don't think that's a meaningful distinction. The church is its people.
The fact that Roman Catholics did something contrary to the doctrine of their church does not invalidate those doctrines. To argue otherwise is erroneous. Your emotional reaction to this horrible news is leading you straight into a logical fallacy.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I could be wrong, IngoB, but I don't think I've ever posted on the subject of abortion on SoF in all the time you've been here, so you don't know what my position is, nor whether it matches up to your caricature of it. Since addressing your caricature would involve discussions of a deceased equine nature, as well you know, it's probably going to have to be left on one side. Rest assured it's nothing like you appear to think.
But feel free to make presumptions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I realize that, Karl. But as others have pointed out, you are confusing the institution with some of the people inside it.
I don't think that's a meaningful distinction. The church is its people.
The fact that Roman Catholics did something contrary to the doctrine of their church does not invalidate those doctrines. To argue otherwise is erroneous. Your emotional reaction to this horrible news is leading you straight into a logical fallacy.
Except for that thing about good trees and good fruit, and bad trees and bad fruit, which if I recall correctly comes from a quite reliable source. The same person who said that also said something about being known by the love we have one for another. Unless that other is poor, or a child, it would seem. So the only logical fallacy here is one shared by the aforementioned source of these two statements.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
